Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV18832, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18832    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant) moves the Court to compel the appearance of Plaintiff Seven Kovalski (Plaintiff) for deposition.  Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff’s Counsel, Natali Shabani (Counsel), has filed a declaration in opposition.  Defendant replies.

            Preliminarily, the Court notes Defendant has failed to specify in the substantive portion of its notice of motion that Defendant is requesting monetary sanctions in connection with the instant motion, as well as who Defendant is requesting monetary sanctions against.  As such, the Court finds Defendant has not given proper notice of its request for monetary sanctions and denies the request as procedurally defective.

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Here, on August 31, 2022, Defendant served the subject deposition notice on Plaintiff.  Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff for September 16, 2022.  On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that they were unable to communicate with Plaintiff.  Plaintiff did not appear for deposition on September 16, 2022.   Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition since the filing of this motion.

In opposition, Counsel for Plaintiff advances her declaration which states that Defendant’s counsel promised to take the instant motion off calendar should Plaintiff’s counsel file a motion to be relieved as counsel.  (Declaration of Natali Shabani, ¶ 6.)  Defendant’s counsel has yet to take the instant motion off calendar despite Counsel for Plaintiff filing a motion to be relieved as counsel with the Court on October 11, 2022.  As Defendant explains in its reply, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff’s deposition whether or not a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff has been filed.  Defendant is correct.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, and orders Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order, unless Defendant stipulates otherwise.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.